ShouldSocialism Prevail
, A DEBATE BETWEEN
AFFIRMATIVE NEGATIVE
ProfessorScott Nearing Rev. Dr. John L. Relford Mr. Morris Hillquit Prof. FrederickM. Davenport
PUBLISHED BY Rand School of Social Science AND New York Call Rudy SocialismBy Correspondence
You can get a thorough knowledge of Socialism and its application to Social Problems if you will study OUI courses by mail.
Sent weekly to you, these lessons form a systematic course of study at a nominal fee:
Form a class of students of any size and we will tell you how to conduct it. If youcannot form a class, take it by yourself.
Three Courses are now available:
Elements of Socialism-twelve lessons. Social History and Economics-twenty-two lessons, Social Problems and Socialist Policy-twelve lessons.
Send for bulletin with complete description to Rand School of Social Science 140 East 19th Street New York City ShouldSocialism Prevail?
A DEBATE
HELD OCTOBER 21, 1915
BROOKLYN. NEW YORK .
Under the Auspices of
THE BROOKLYN INSfITUTE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES,
SUBJECT:- Resolved,,thirt Socialism ,ought to prevail in the United States.
AFFIRMATIVE NEGATIVE
Professor Scott Nearing Rev. Dr. John L. Belford Mr. Morris Hillquit Professor Frederick M. Davenport J. Herbert Lowe, Chairman
Edited by William M. Feigenbaum
Published by The Rand School of Social Science.
New York, 1916 ,,\,: . _ *-?-:, _.. s-1’ -’
Kand School of Social Science Xc-x York City Introductory Note I ., ,
On the 21st of October, 1915, tbere \?ras held undeF.‘t& aus- pices of the Brooklyn Institute of Arts ,ana Sciences a &bate on the subject: “Resolved: that Socialism ought to prevail in the United States.” The Institute had under way the inauguration of a Public Fbrum for the discussion of important matters of pub- lic interest. The Department of Political Science and Sociology had been holding lectures on various subjects, and it was felt that the debate would be an auspicious opening for!‘the Forum. The Institute; which is an organization for the enlightenment of its many thousands of members on a variety of subjects, has its headquarters in the Academy of Music. In small lecture rooms. readings, lectures on literary and scientific subjects, and sm& musi- cales, are held throughout the year. The d&bate on Sociafism’was to have 6een held in one of the smrillei rooms, but shoitly be- fore the opening of the discussion, the great theater in which the Metropolitan Opera Company gives its weekly performances had to be requisitioned into service. A half hour before the open- ing of the debate, the great hall was packed, and thousands were turned away for lack of room. There never was more intense interest in the discussion of an academic subject than there was that day. It may be that the prominence of the speakers drew the vast crowd to the Academy. Tt may be that the fact that a man who had just been deposed as a teacher in a great University for expressing views that grated on the nerves of the reactionary trustees was to be one of the debaters brought the multitude. It may be that the interest in Socialism was so genuine that the crotids thronged Lafayette Avenue and tried to jam their way in. Probably a combination of all these was the reason for the success of the debate. Certain it is that the vast audience was thrilled by one of the most electric discussions that was ever heard in conservative old Brooklyn. That the audience was par- tial was shown by. the applause that the speakers received when their names were mentioned. Nearin& name was cheered; Hill- quit’s received its meed; Davenport’s was greeted warmly. But when the name of Dr. Belford.was mentioned, the wild and tumult- ous cheering well-nigh lifted the roof. lt is a known fact that in many churches, the parishioners were told to attend this debate and cheer their champion. And this makes it all the more-significant that at the end of the evening, the crowd was laughing derisively at Belford’s break about the “fnr- eigners” in the Socialist Party, and were cheering Hillquit’s keen thrusts. The Editor wishes to express his thanks to the Brooklyn Insti- tute of Arts and Sciences for their courtesy in assisting in compil- ing these notes, as well as to the Brooklyn Daily Eagle, for the use of two of the pictures- herewith reproduced. ’ WI‘LLIAM MOR&IS FEJGENBAUM. The Debaters
NO more representative debaters could have been chosen than the four men who upheld and opposed Socialism that night. Scott Nearing, discharged from his Pennsylvania berth because of his radicalism ; and Morris Hillquit, National Chairman of the Socialist
Party of the United States upheld Socialism. Frederick M. Davenport, late Progressive candidate for Governor of New York, a representative of the advanced opponents of Socialism, and the Rev. Father Belford, a noted Roman Catholic Priest of Brooklyn. attacked it. Indeed, so representative were the men that it is
‘: ’
Professor Frederick M. Davenport (Coortesy Brooklyn Eagle) reported that practically every priest in Brooklyn advised hiz flocks to attend and see Socialism demolished. Father John L. Belford is the pastor of the Church of the
6 tirakness of his caue. For he is thoroughlyiamiliar with the So- cialist theory and literature. Professor Davenport is a Progressive in both the literal and political senses of the word; he is a liberal, he is a noted scholar and teacher, and he is a leading member of the Progressive Parv, ha&w been its candidate for Governor in 1914, As Professor of
MORRIS HILLQUIT Scott Nearing is but thirty-two years old, but is better known as a scholar than many men of twice his age and experience. For the past nine years a university teacher at Pennsylvania and Swatih- mbre, h’e has written a series of brilliant books that hvvt brought 8 home to masses of people the facts of economics in a way that they could understand. His radicalism is well known, and his adventur,es with reactionary boards of trustees ane reoent history. This debate was his first public appearance in h’ew Yo;k, and in the eyes of a vast majority, he distinctly “made gaod.” Morris Hillquit is a Socialist war horse of nearly thin& pearq’ service. He was born in 1870, and at eighteen, he flung himself. into the movement with a devotion and an enthusiasm that has not flagged in all the years that have followed. Hillquit is a mem- ber of the National Committee of the United States, he is Amer- ican representative on the International Socialist Bureau, he is Na- tional Chairman of the Socialist Party, he is the author of a number of standard Socialist works, he is a well-known debater on Socialism and kindred topics, and if the capitalist class could buy him, he would be cheap at any price. The Brooklyn Eagle was not far wrong when it called him the “king pin Socialist of America.” In every way, this debate can be considered one of the mast notable that New York ever heard, on Socialism. The debaters were men of the front rank. They were keyed up, and.t& did their best. The vast audience was thoroughly responsive to their speeches, and at times the interest reached the wildest enthusiasm, and when the debate was over, hundreds of people crowded the streets for hours and excitedly discussed the evening’s entertain- ment, carrying the news of the keenest battle of wits in many a day all over Greater New York. The Rand School and The Call are happy to put this intel- lectual treat in the reach of the hundreds of thousandsV who are interested in the subject, but who were unable to g-et into the hall. Chairman’s Remarks J. HERBERT LOW, (Chairman :) Ladies and gentlemen : The Institute hopes that the forum inaugurated tonight, the first to be held by the Department of Political Science and Sociology, will be looked upon as a privilege afforded to the members. We need it to clarify our ideas of modern problems, and it is wise to hear the side of a question for which we do not have sympathy. If the forum can help to make clear these problems, its service will be a great one. That it is wanted, there can be no doubt. We are very glad to be able to offer at this debate men of such authority on the issue of the evening. Incidentally, a number of you will want to argue the question after the debate is closed. Two minutes will be allowed you to frame your questions, and only two. Statements from the floor of the house cannot in fairness be allowed, because the members who have come here to-night have come to be informed on the question under debate by the speakers, and this purpose would be defeated if the subject were thrown to the floor of the house for discussion. The debaters are ready to answer all legitimate questions. We will’ndt do what forums have done in the past, give out slips of paper, and dollect the questions in that way. Each questioner will state his or her own question. Each questioner will wait until recognize’d by the chair before putting the question, and we hope that you will do your share to make this plan a success to-night. The question under debate is, “Resolved, that Socialism ought to prevail in the United States.” The speakers for the affirmative are, Dr. Scott Nearing, of Philadelphia (Applause) and Mr. .Morris Hillquit, of New York. (Applause.) On the negative, are Reverend Father Belford, (Tremendous cheering) of Brooklyn, and Professor Frederick M. Davenport, of Hamilton College. The speakers will be allowed 15 minutes each; on rebuttal, 10 minutes each ; and the first speaker to address you this evening- 86 ‘or before 1 mention his name I should state to you that Father Belford will treat the moral side of Socialism, Professor ‘Daven- port the economic and political sides, Professor Nearing, .Socialism on the economic side, and Mr. Hillquit will take up .the orthodox Socialism. The first speaker of the evening, Professor Scott ‘Near- ing. (Great applause.) : .) .’ .I >
.,
i Professor Seatt Nearing The ,terns ~%cialism as we will use it to-night means .the col- le&ve ‘or. community ownership and .managetnent of the social tools of production,- the collective owner&p and management of the social tools of production. It does not make very much difference what people say: the essential thing is what they do. You will find, for example, in one of the chapters of Matthew, this saying: “The Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do: but do not after their works: for they say, and do not.” I want to run over very briefly with you some of the things that have been happening that are rapidly making Socialism in- evitable. In my estimation, the people who are making Socialism inevitable are the people who control deals like those now being revealed in the New Haven inquiry-the people who control our public and municipal utilities, our railroads, our iron and coal mines, our oil wells,-and who cannot control their own greed. These people are the people who are making Socialism as inevita- ble as it is. We as a nation started out in this country over a century ago with the proposition that everybody had an equal right to life, lib- erty, and the pursuit of happiness. And we started with the prop- osition that the way to make people happy and cheerful was to give each a bit of land. The scheme worked admirably on the frontie;, because there were two acres of land for every man who wanted land, and two tons of iron for every man who wanted iron, and two tons of coal for every man who wanted coal. The resources of the country were ample, just as at the present time the resources of the country are ample. The colonists, remember, were stretched in a narrow fringe down the Atlantic Coast. We said: “Give each of the children of men equal right to the use of the earth, and we will have equality of opportunity.” We also said at that ‘time, in our Constitutional convention, for example, that those things, those
12 functions of society which can best be performed by the individual should be left to the individual; whereas those functions of society that can best be performed by the community, should be left to the community. I subscribe thoroughly to the dictum of ‘Thomas Jefferson, that “that government governs best, which governs least”; provided you add to that dictum the statement that a sufficient amount of government must be provided to safeguard the welfare of ihe majority of the people in the community. We need not more gov- ernment, but sufficient government. The first Constitutional con- vention put into the hands of the government the control of State affairs, because experience had shown that certain activities can be carried on better by the State, like the coining of money, the imposition of the tariff, and like community affairs, which cannot successfully be carried on under individual control. These things were put under Federal control on the general theory that community welfare comes first. Anything which is best carried on by the individual in terms of community welfare should be carried on by the individual. Anything which is best car&d on by the government, again in furtherance of community welfare, should be put under the control of the government. -Now, I submit to you that these two propositions are still as valid as they w-ere then. But circumstances have changed. We have used up our natural resources. There is no more good free land. The great natural resources are all in the possession of the coal and iron and steel and timber and other great interests. The) have been labelled 31lNE--M-I-N-E-by some one who knows that the very system which in 1789 allowed the boy to buy a bit of land and develop it, and gave him thereby opportunity, by vesting the ownership of the land in the great corporations, denies to the boy born in 1915, the oppottuuities of the boy in 1789. Whereas in 1’789 there were two ‘acres of timber and coal for every one who needed them, in 1915 the choice bits of the earth’s surface are pre-empted. Those things best managed by the individual should be .indi- vi&rally controlled. Those things best managed by the commun$ty should be communally controlled. u it is impossibie in a veiy’short discussion like this to go ;ntb much detail; but I should like to take you into this much detail, to illustrate the thing that has happened when great corporate interests have secured possession of the natural resources. About fifty million people in the United States use hard coal- ten million families; and all of the important hard coal in the country is located in one little section of Pknnsylvania. There are ten important railroads carrying hard coal out of that section. Ten groups of railroad interests control 90 per cent. of the unmined coal and nearly nine-tenths of the production each year. In other words, nine-tenths of the anthracite coal is in the hands of ten anthracite carrying railroads. There are certain legal provisions which prevent railroadS from owning coal; but what is the constitu- tion among vested interests? They own tlie lands just the same. = Up to 1898 while the railroads controlled those lands they never succeeded in making a sufficient combination-something en- terecl in; some disturbin factoi; some busy attorney general, or a defunct railroad that broke things up. In 1898 the railroads got things about the way they ‘wanted them. Then the fun began, In 1898 the dividends paid by the anthracite railroads were small. It was a lean year. There had been a series of lean years since 1893. For 1900, the average divi- dend paid by the ten anthracite roads was 2 8-10th. per cent. From 1900 to 1914 these interesting things happened: The amount of stove coal which a con&mer rould purchase with ten dollars at New York moderate prices decreased one fifth- 20 per cent. The wage rate of the anthracite miners decreased 21 per cent., and the dividend rate of the coal carriers increased about 260 per cent. (Laughter and Applause.) In other words, given a great natural resource under the monopoly control of a powerful organization-in this case of railroads-given such a situation, the worker does not get sufficient to keep up with the rising cost of living. The producer, the profit-taker, has an increase in profits of hundreds of per cent. and the consumer pays the entire bill. 14 So true does thisdthold, that during the hostilities of 1912, when the miners got an increase of 5% per cent., that wage increase added 9 cents to the price of a ton of coal. The railroads raised the price 25 cents a ton, and made 16 cents additional on the coal. In 1914 dividends averaged 9 l-10 per cent. for each of the ten railroads. How long will the millions of people who need anthracite coal pay that kind of profits to railroads or say great financial interests that control them? A piece of the earth’s surface that was here before any of our railroad managers, or others ever were born, which according to equity and justice, as I understand it, ought to be the property of the whole American people. (Applause.) I started out by saying it does not matter what people say, but what they do. The anthracite carrying railroads have developed an economic situation where the worker does not get enough to keep up with the cost of living, while the profit takers get hundreds of per cent. You people, the consumers, foot the total bill. That kind of a situation duplicated again and again makes it necessary to reapply the principle: Where an individual produces things best in an individual way, the individual should do it, but when the community is in danger, the community must step in and do the work collectively. (Applause.) Ii CHAIRMAN: With the acquiescence of the other debaters. Eathen Bdford w,ill take twenty minutes for presentation, and five minutes for rebuttal. The Reverend ‘Father Belford. ( Treman- dous cheering,)
, Rev. Father Bedford Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen: The reason that I asked for tw-enty minutes was because I was out of town when the ar- rangements were agreed upon; I thank my fellow-debaters for their courtesy in agreeing to the time that I have asked. . Tn an editorial on the Gary school system, The Contiaelzf, a secular publication, expresses this truth : “Neither this republic nor any other could long survive if the majority of the people ceased to be conscious that they are answerable to God for their conduct and the right discharge of their duties of life.” This seems to be the conviction of those who vote an emphatic “no” to the proposition that Socialism is good. (Applause.) Let us examine the notion of Socialism. There are many ex- ponents and as many definitions. First of all, it is a plan to re- organize society. The basis of that reorganization is. absolutely economic. The effect they seek is that all persons shall enjoy lit- crty and equality, collectively o,v+ming and utilizing the sources of wealth and means of distribution for the common good. In other words, it aims at the overthrow of the existing form of govern- ment and the establishment of a socialistic state which will own all of the mines and mills, the factories, the railroads, the telephones and telegraphs, and conduct them all for the benefit of the people. There shall be no male or female, bond or free, young or old, strong or weak, wise or foolish.. The State will be supreme, and all members will be equal. It will own and employ all; it will pro- vide for all. In it there will be no such things as competition, no poverty, and practically no crime. To insure this, most of the existing laws must be swept away, and replaced by a new code that will rest on the economic basis that livelihood is the paramount object of life. It must necessarily r6 exclude things that are spiritual, for all materialistic Socialism denies the existence of everything except matter, or some mode or form of matter. Most of us believe that there is in man a spiritual soul, and any system that does not provide for the soul cannot bring about any improvement in the nation. The real life of man is in his senses and affections, and they are the functions of his spirit. If we are to change society, we must change the hearts of those who make up society. Then Socialism brings forward the great remedy of State own- ership. It denies the right of any one to own ,property. and to profit by the labor of ofhers. Now, nobody denies the existence of evils in the present sys- tem. They are many and great. Some are necessary evils; some are excusable; some are inexcusable. They are not intrinsic to private ownership. There are those which can be prevented. and which we are slowly and surely controlling and reducing, and which we hope some day entirely to eliminate. When we ask the Socialist to tell us the details of his indict- ment, he usually begins with the inequality that prevails. Now. inequality is not confined to society. It exists even in nature. While we are all born equal, there are certain inequalities which can never be removed. We differ in height and strength as we differ in heart and mind. Some have the ability to teach. to plan, to pre- pare, while others go in to follow and learn. Our tastes and desires and aspirations are as various as the flowers that bloom in the garden. Inequality is not altogether a curse. While undoubtedly it deprives some of the accidental goods of life, it has been the in- spiration of a charity which has everywhere made noble spirits share their goods with the poor and lowly. (Applause and langh- ter.) It has nevertheless blessed the world with the gifts of per- sonal service and produced sublime examples of patience and for- bearance. Some of our useful institutions all over the -country have done their best to mitigate, if they cannot entirely relieve, s&erinp: (Laughter.> Vice and crime exist here as they exist everywhere, b.t thev e&t in spite of honest and sustained efforts to 10 teachers has advised us not to pull up the weeds lest we kill the wheat. The right to the ownership of that which he has fairly. re- ceived as wages, the right to keep it or give it away, is what dis- tinguishes man from animals. Man has reason, animal has only instinct. Man provides for the future, and lives in that future. and makes provision for it. But what is Socialism going to give us? It takes account of nothing but matter. It takes care of the ptrishing body and trains the mind, but it has no regard for any and every of his inner needs and motives-the real life of human nature. (Applause.) His inner life motives are of far more value than the uses and needs of his body. The home is the great social unity. Socialism destroys it. Socialism tells us that marriage is only a very temporary arrange- ment, which should last only as long as love lasts; and when lpve dies, the compact is dissolved. An example of the creed was given us the other day in New York Things are bad enough now, and what would they be if we repeal the laws and allow men to follow their whims and caprices ? (Applause.) The -4merican S.ocialist Party platform deznands the education of all children under eighteen years, and State and municipal laws for the enforcement of this policy. Socialism will take the child from its parents and raise it scientifically, in the State school and gymnasium: and produce the splendid animalism of Sparta and Greece. This would kill the fairest flowers that we have. mother love and filial devotion. Now, lust as the product belongs to the producer, so do chii- dreu belong to their parents. and they have every right to bring them up according to their own conscience. Character is the effect of three forces, heredity, education, and environment. Education involves the mind ac well ac the soul and body. (.4pplause.) 20 CHAIRMAN: The second on the atlirmative. Mr. Hillquit Morris Hillquit Ladies and Gentlemen. Incidentally it might be well to re- member that the subject of to-night’s discussion is: Resolved, that Socialism ought to prevail in the United States. By way of diver- sion I shall try to address myself to that subject. (Laughter and applause.) Socialism ought to prevail in the United States. It ought to prevail all over the world. (Applause.) It ought to prevail parti- cularly in the United States for this reason: If the people of this country are proud of anything in their institutions it is their democracy, and democracy is not and can not be complete without Socialism. (Applause.) What we call democracy is the equal right of all to administer their common affairs. We do have a certain semblance of political democracy. We all-that is all sovereign male beings, at least, have a voice in the making of our laws and institutions, our political destinies. But in the more important side of our existence, the industrial side; in the task of sustaining the lives of the one hundred million human beings who people this country, we allow an oligarchy, a small group of individuals, much less than one per ce1.t. of the entire population, to control all the rest of us and to say how and whether we shall work and live. We have in the United States to-day at the utmost, one-half of political democracy. The other half we shall attain when the men will consent to enfranchise the women of this country. We have absolutely no industrial democracy. Consequently, we are only about one-fourth democratic. The Socialists say that there can not be such a thing as partial democracy and partial aristocracy. We can not be half slave and half free. This nation will have to choose between democracy and despotism. Take the condition of this country. It occupies an area of about. three million square miles, almost as much as that of all continental Europe. It is one of the most fertile parts of the world, abounding in every kind of natural wealth and resources. One hundred million people inhabit it, a good third of them capabIe of producing wealth, of making the things which they need for their own lives. And we have highly developed industries with a veritable network of railroads, telephones and telegraphs, and marvelous machinery of toil. We can produce to-day with them one hundred times as much as our grandfathers could without them. There ought to be ample wealth in :hi\ country to sustain the last one of us in decent comfort. But what do we see instead. 7 A disappearingly small portion of the population owns the country. The vast majority live in dread of the morrow, have not enough to sustain their lives from day to day. Why? Because the great country does not belong to people of the United States. The country with all the soil and all the wealth on it belongs to a small group of individuals as their exclusive and private property. The land upon which you stand, you tread’by the permission of your landlord. The food you eat. you get by permission of the trusts. The work that you do, you do by permission of the “owners” of the land, mines, mtlls ana factories. In short, the people of the United States do not depend upon themselves for the right to live and enjoy what they produce, but upon a small coterie of their own number. That is what we call an industrial oligarchy. That is what Socialism would abolish. (Applause.) Socialism stands for the collective ownership of the social instruments of production, as Professor Nearing has stated. What does that mean? When the Socialists repeat the popular slogan, America for the Americans, they mean all Americans. Is there anything heretic in. that? When we speak of public ownership or collective owner- ship, we do not mean what Dr. Belford thinks we mean. We do not mean. that the .State is to be the one big employer, assigning 22 to each of us ,a job, and fixing such wages as it may please. There are some industries that might well be managed by the national government even now, such as railroads, telephones, telegraphs, mines and industries that have already attained national dimensions, such as the steel works. Some industries, on the other hand, the municipalities cowId best operate, some, the co-operative societies, and there are others that individuals only can operate, such as the various arts and crafts. The point is not so much who operate the industries. We object to the power of, any person to control the labor of another person, to the right of one individual to amass fortunes at the expense of others. Father Belford says, Why, that is a sacred right, a “human right.” He tells you about the farmer who employs a farm hand, paying him Two Dollars, and “making” Five Dollars for him- self. “And,” queries Father Belford, “Does not nature contribute to the production of the other five? Does not the soil do some- thing? And how about the sunshine, the air and all other bounties of nature ?” True! But does Father Relford contend that God has created his sunshine for the farmer and not for the farm hand? (Loud and continued applause and laughter.) There is another reason why Father Belford’s little illustra- tion is interesting. Whenever our opponents set about to demolish Socialism they talk about the hard working farmer. (Laughter.) What about Rockefeller, who does not know where some of his vast property is located, or where his money comes from, but makes thousands of men work for him and surrender to him the fruit of their toil? What about the railroad magnate who hires hundreds or thousands of men and who often has never so much as examined the operations of his road? . “The right to profits and property is sacred because the intelli- gent human being foresees the future and stores away wealth for his offspring,? says Father Belford. I would have no objection. I’d. .store away all the. psogerty I could for my children, because 1 love my children. 23 Bur ton mrght object to my providing for my children at the expense of yours, and that is precisely .what the affectionate, capitalist father does to-day. Father Belford says Socialism will abolish all possible inequalities, including those between the wise and the foolish; even we Socialists do not dare to hope for that,. (Applause.? We do not expect to abolish inequalities. We expect to in troduce some new inequalities. We have too many equalities now. Come into the factories, the mines and mills, where hundreds of thousands of workers are living alike, working alike, dressing alike, talking alike and thinking alike. and you will have a picture of that dread and dreary equality of misery which characterizes a great portion of modern society. .4nd then we are asked, Why not try Socialism in sections to- day i Try Socialism to-day ! Try the Twenty-first Century to-day ; give us a sample of the Kingdom of Heaven here and now; give us Heaven in installments. We can not introduce the future by sections. And then Father Belford assures us that Socialism will not abolish crime. He says law has failed and religion has failed to abolish crime. With that admission, might it not be a fair experi- ment to let Sociajism try a hand at it? (Laughter and applause.) If religion has failed, if law has failed, shall we therefore resign ourselves to a world of everlasting crime and vice, or shall we try some remedy that at least has not yet failed? Now. why has religion failed to check crime, and why have laws failed to check crime? If you leave this hall to-night and are hungry. and have starv- ing children waiting for you at home; if you pass by your neighbor. who has a superfluity of everything you need to sustain your very life and the lives of our beloved, you may resist temptatior once. and you may resist it the second time. but at last you hunger will compel you to take the food that your body craves foe When people are starving they are not accessible to bare ‘cornman& of the law or to abstract cations of morality and religion. A se& 24 mon on the evil of stealing will not deter a starving man from taking food wherever he can find it. Passing a law will not deter you. But if you are given .bread, you will not steal! (Applause.) The error of law and ‘of religion hti b&au: itt that they have aI- ways attempted to eradicate crime and vice without changing the conditions which inevitably breed them. Socialism alone attempts to abolish crime by wiping out poverty, the mother of all crime. ( Appl,ause.) We do not claim perfection under Socialism. There is no such thing as absolute perfection. We do not care for it. It would be a monotonous, tedious world to live in if everything were perfect. (Laughter.) But we do say we are better off to-day than we were fifty years ago; we should be a great deal better off in twenty-five years than we are to-day, and that the ever continuing and grow- ing process of betterment makes for the establishment of the most humane form of social life which we can conceive to-day-Social- ism. (Applause.) CHAIRIVAN : The second ,spqaker on the negative,, Pr,ofessor Davenport. Professor Da+enport Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen: Father Belford proposes a pretty bad state in which to try out Socialism. Kansas is’ a dry state and it would be pretty tough to try it out where there would be no chance to drown sorro,w and disappointment when Socialism did not work. Every state exists for the development of the greatest possi- ble amount of welfare and freedom and happiness for the incl- vidual. In every state, Socialism and individualism are ‘comple- ments of one another. Every stafe must have a certain amount of Socialism, for its post-offices, its lighthouses, for example. TOP only question is as to whether Socialism in any country shail ‘bc dominant and controlling in volume and power. W-e are talking about Socialism in the United Slates, Which has had from the beginning vast resources, vast opportunities for indi- vidual freedom. individual ownership, individual ambition. The genius of the American people has been to have as little govern- ment as possible, but we have learned in the last generation the need for a much wider extension of governmental function than was forme+ thought necessary or desirable. I am here to argue that Socialism ought not to prevail in the United States. I hold that it ought not to prevail first, because the tendency of it would be to destroy the politica promise of Ameri- can life. Socialism would take land out of the field of private. ownership. Now one of the most conspicuous successes of OUT progress has been the homestead policy of the United States, b! which millions of individual owners have been given a propert>- stake in the land in the Middle and Far West. This has resulted in a great development in those sections of independence of char- acter, and a sense of freedom and right. The West has been the vital center of what has heen worth while in our political democ- 26 EICY. Uut oi the U’est has come the movement against the political machines and against railway apd trust and tariff autocracy and privilege. The West is full of the spirit of the common good, and it is spreading out of the West all through the country. ,With a proper distribution of immigration on the part of the national gov- ernment, there is room for millions more sturdy, independent own- ers of small farms, cultivated on the intensive plan. And the result will be further increase of democracy in line with the genius of the American people. Socialism would destroy- the political promise of American life also by overloading our political democracy. Our state gov- ernments already are breaking down on the side of efficiency, economy and responsibility. The government at %ShingtOn is weak in the same direction. I am as good a democrat as anybody, but I recognize the limitations of democracy, and I don’t wish to see it cave in because of the imposing of too great burdens upon it. Government has broken down already in many of our com- monwealths and the real rulers of society are not the representa tives of’ the people. Then along comes Socialism and wishes to pour upon govern- ment, upon Congress, upon bureaus, upon managers, that we may elect, the infinitely more complex economic and financial responsi- hilities and duties which go with the machinery of production in the United States-vast natural monopoly, public utilities, mines. factories, the larger workshops, the land-directive ability, the sav- ing of capital. the fixing of prices. the fixing of wagesto pour all this upon the state and ask American democracy to make it all work better than under private ownership, initiative and direction. Socialism aould also have a tendency to destroy the social promise of -1merican life. We have had a great deal of’ fierce. brutal competition in this country, but there is also a mass of altruism here and a desire to make this the best, the happiest, and the most prosperous country in the world. America wishes ,to .’ stand for hrotherhood. . And along comes Socialism with its doctrine of the class strug- gle and the social revolution. I understand that Socialism did not originate the class struggle. I understand that not all Socialists are s-dicalists or I. W. W.‘s. I understand that many Socialists be- lieve that violence is at least not expedient. But the attitude of mind of Socialism towards class warfare as the way out into social tevolution and millennium, is conducive in the highest degree to antagonisms and frictions and hatreds which bid fair. if not checked, to blight the social promise of American life. The mind of the United States is now set against the class struggle. We are beginning to see how much we lack social co- hesion. Out in San Francisco, there are no citizens of San Fran- cisco. They are only citizens of the labor class, or citizens of the capitalist class. There are no citizens of the state of Colorado for the same reason. I know abodt the fierce brutality on both sides of the labor war in that state, and young John D. Rockefeller’s scheme‘ of an industrial republic is far from complete. But the spirit shown in the last month of conciliation and humanity and brotherhood has far more of the social promise of Ameritan life in it,.&an all the class struggle and class warfare and class fric- tion upon which Socialism depends. Socialism would also destroy the economic promise of Ameri- can life. I am not belittling the evils of the present economic sys- tem. But on the side of production, if not yet on the side of dis- tribution, America has been the most successful country in the world. Our managers of production have been trained in the hard schools of experience, by natural selection under free competition, and have represented the survival of the fittest. Our improve- ments and inventions have made possible a great surplus of saving, to become the capital of new enterprises. Our labor has not. been as freein many fields as it ought to be, but through coIlective bar- gaining, throtigh the action of government, as the result of vast economic prosperity, there has not been increasing misery, but on the whole increasing welfare. . And -then along comes Socialism and proposes to elect by popular vote our directive ability in industry, with a laurel wreath instead of pecuniary profit to satisfy ambition. Technical mas- tery and skill cannot be selected by mass yoting or by the political insight of bureaucrats. (Great applause.) . CHAIRMAN: In rebuttal on the affirmative, Professor Near- ing., Ptofessor Scott .Nearing John D. Rockefeller, Junior-The social promise of American life ! (Laughter and applause. j The only social promise that the .imerican people ask is the opportunity to make their living. (-4pplause.) Professor Davenport seems strangely addicted to the soil. He says that we have put individual men on the land, and given them a stake in the land, and that they are now the promise of i\merican life. We put them on that land, and gave them a stake in the land. Well. what next? He says, send out more men. Where? At the present time in Texas, in certain counties, 55 per cent. of the people who run the land are tenants. Now put another million farmers into Texas, and you may raise the percentage to seventy-five. However, I very much prefer to come back to New York. (Laughter.) How about Sew York? Professor Davenport says that the Kovernment is breaking down under the strain. What strain? The strain of the Rockefeller millions is breaking down democracy. i.4pplause.) That is the strain that is breaking down democracy: the strain of too much wealth and power, vested in irresponsible private hands. That is the strain to which Mr. Davenport should turn his attention. The strain to which the government has been subject is the strain of private ownership of the municipal and public utilities of the nation. (Continued applause.) Dr. Belford says that law and religion have failed. I should not have cared to go that far. He says that Socialists hold out a bunch of promises and prophesies. Has he no promises and prophe- sies? I thought that of all men the minister w*ith the Bible in his hand should be the man with promises and prophesies, because nowhere else under the face of heaven do we have so many promises and prophesies as we have in our Christian Rihle. C Ap- 30 plause.) Promises and prophesies muat be a .part of. oar religion and &~&on., ) ! , I j It is in the name of prom.ises and prophesies that every for- ward looking man speaks his mind. ): Then, Dr. ,Belford says, Is notlithe teil life of man inteior ? Yes. He says that when the welfare of the soul is not safe- guarded, man will perish. Yes. The real life of man is interior. I have been reading a description of the lives of the men they callMhe muckers, the men that ‘are diiging the Subway under your streets. It tells of a man going up in a garret m one of. ‘trip New York tenements, and having the bolt drawn back by a little boy of ten. The dining room, parlor and kitchen were all one room. “Where is your mother?” was asked. “She is cleaning downtown,” camiz the reply. Then he told how the baby was at the nursery; his father earned gJ.50 a day as a mucker. If this man works steadily at $1.50 a day, it means $468 a year. And your social experts tell you that in the city of New York, a man with a wife and three small children cannot do it on less than $840. Four hundred and sixty-eight,dollars to keep that man, wife and three babies-in the interior life. (Applause.) Y tell you, Dr. Belford, that the thing that has made the in- terior life is the wage conditions that -are provided by American industry for the people that do Amirica’s work. You go through &her factories right here in New York. Never mind Kansas, never mind the west. Sweep your own dirty backyard clean. (Applause.) Right here in New York the men that are doing your work in the subwav are now gettmg $1.60. because they could not get men at $1.5U. Think of it, working down in the ground for $468 a year. And you cannot keep a family decently on less than $840 in New York You talk about destroying the home. If this present system lasts long enough there won’t be any homes for Socialism to de stray. (Applause.) As T said in the beginning, 1 am‘not a Socialist, I am not a +I member of the Socialist party, but a student of economics. Look- ing at your problems; there are the monopolies owned by a fe.w on the one hand, and on the other, millions of people that are doipg your work, paid a wage that won’t keep body and soul to- gether. That is what keeps the ten year old children in the house, and the two year old children in the nurseries. That is the very thiig that will bring Socialism. Say the man is sent to the hospital. The children are then thrown on the care of the community and the neighborhood. Socialism ? You don’t need Socialism to destroy the home. The home is destroyed. And what has done it? The thing that does it is the low wage. Who stands for this condition ? American private industries. We have private industry in New York controlling the re- sources which are for all, controlling the capital, and exploiting the laborers out of millions annually. The property owners take some eight thousand million dollars a year for their property owner- ship, because they own property. Socialism does not promise everything. Neither does capitalism. but if law and religion have failed, Socialism comes forward with its remedies and promises. One of these promises is a democratic life.given when every child born in the city of New York shall have an equal opportunity with the boy and .girl neighbors to show what his capacities and talents really are, and only when that time really comes will democracy be here. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN: The first speaker on the negative, in rebuttal, the Rev. Father Belford. The difference between Mr. Hillquit and myself is this: Mr. Hillquit appealed to passion, and I appealed to reason. (Laughter.) The difference between Professor Nearing and Mr. Hillquit and myself, the differences that we have had on this point. are logical to a very great degree. There is a great deal in logic. I laid down general principles. Against them they have alleged particular facts. (Laughter.) I know the abuses of capitalism. Didn’t I say that there are abuses in capitalism? (Laughter.) Didn’t I say that we are trying our best to make them right? What are you people doing? Why don’t you change the men that make your laws? Why is it that every two or four years we force out a particular political administration? Because we are dissat- isfied with them, because they have not ameliorated conditions. That is American government for you. That is our American system. When they speak about the home, they point to a partic- ular home. I point to the fact that Socialism would break up the home. I point to the further fact that Socialism is irreligious. Does not Mr. Hillquit tell us, does he deny that he has told us, that 99 per cent. of Socialists land in agnosticism ? (Applause.) I say that if you want to make man right you will have to begin on the inside. The curse of America is not capitalism; the curse of America is irreligion. Only 60 per cent. belong to any church, or have any religion, and of the 60 per cent., 50 per cent. are a disgrace to any church. (Laughter and applause.) The 10 per cent. are the salt of the earth, and they are making conditions better than they found them. Conditions are improving right along because of this chnrch-going 10 per cent., and they are going to be better still, and it won’t be because of Socialism. The point is this: Socialism denies the right of private owner- ship. That is a right that is fundamental in nature and in the 33 American system, and it is up to them to overthrow it. It is up to them to show us why it is wrong. Take the men that are blowing the horn of Socialism. Who are they, as a rule? I say this without meaning to offend any one. Are they not a lot of foreigners?- (Hisses, applause, and laughter.) I am not referring to Mr. Hillquit (laughter), but you know that this is true. (Hisses.) I say Socialism is not good for the gov- ernment of the United States (hisses), and I say it is not good for this reason: It is un-American‘ and it is irreligious: it denies the existence of a sovereign God, and it denies the existence of anything outside of matter or some form of matter. They have thrown religion overboard. I believe in prophecy, and I believe in promises. But we are talking about a particular kind of prophecy and a particular kind of promises. I believe in prophecy by some one who has creden- tials. (Laughter.) If you think that over you won’t laugh at it. (Loud and continued laughter and applause.) 34 CHAIRMAN: The second speaker on the affirmative, Mr. Hillquit. Mr, Hillquit Under a system of Socialism every debater will be given five hours for his main speech and three hours for his rebuttal. (Laugh- . ter.) It is rather difficult to answer in ten minutes the two speakers on the negative side. I will take up only the most salient points, and that very hrieily. First, Dr. Belford asserts that I have made the statement that 39 per cent. of the Socialists are agnostics. He says I have never denied having made that statement. To satisfy him I now and ,hereby, and in the presence of Dr. Belford, do make solemn denial. I have never said that 99 per cent. of the Socialists are agnos- tics, or that any definite proportion of them are agnostic. I don’t know any more the percentage of Socialist agnostics than that of the ,Republican or Democratic agnostics. (Laughter.) What forms the slim foundation of this assertion is this: In a national convention of the Socialist Party a certain proposed plank in the platform was under discussion. It was to the effect that the Socialist movement is a social and economic movement and is not concerned with matters of religion. When some opposi- tion was raised to this plank, I said in support of it that S’ocialism as such had nothing to do with religion, and even if 99 per cent. of the Socialists were agnostic that would not make Socialism agnostic.’ All my good friends of the Catholic church have done is to eliminate the “if” and the conclusion. The rest they quote verba- tim. (Tremendous cheering.) Second. Although Dr. kelford did not include present com- pany (Laughter), he’did assert that the majority of Socialists in this country were foreigners, and that observation was not in- tended to redound to the credit of the movement. 35 A. great many things have come from foreign countries, Fathet Relford, which have added to the progress and happiness of this country. It is the interchange of ideas, attainments and men be- tween the countries of tlnz world that makes ,for intellectual growth. I will say, however, for the information of those who map need it,,that as it happens the Socialist movement in this country . has a larger percentage of native born Americans than the Repub- lican or Democratic -parties can boast of. (Applause.) I may also call your attention to another thing. The English- men who are foreign here are native subjects in England, rhe Germans who are foreigners here are native subjects in Germany. They have few foreigners in the countries of Europe, yet there is a Socialist movement in every advanced European country. In fact, there is not a civiliied country in the world that has not a Socialist movement. The strength of the Socialist movement in each given country is a pretty reliable test of the degree of civiliza- tion in that country. (Applause.) American Socialism, like European Socialism, is the product of modern social and economic conditions. Neither the foreigners nor the ,natives are responsible for its inception, nor can they check its growth. That much for Father Belford, and now let me try to answer a few objections of Professor Davenport. With him the trouble seems to be that he has evolved a certain plan of social progress, all his own, a beautiful and harmonious scheme, but along comes Socialism (Laughter) without credentials, mind you, (Laughter) and inconsiderately interferes with it. First, it destroys the political promise of American life. Pro- fessor Davenport admits that our political democracy is not per- fect; as a matter of fact it is a sham democracy. Not because we haven’t got the short ballot or any of the other nostrums advocated by the Professor, but because our legislators, those whom Father Belford wishes to turn out, our executive officials in a vast number of cases, are directly or indirectly subservient to capitalist interests. They are in office .to support the present economic system. Politics is nothing but a branch of the capitalist’s business. The great corporations, for instance, want franchises, privileges 36 and “protection.” To get them they must dominate our political institutions and corrupt our public officials. Under Socialism there will be no private production for profit, hence no inducement to political corruption. ‘ 44 honest and u~pktetiions service ‘kill biing tkec’sfipport neces sary for further dev8zi~plsr~~. (. I Inatruotors and Lgcturers. 1916-1916: SAMU~ E: BEARDSLEV Juuer $TIJART POOYNTZ, A,:M. LOWIS B. &XIbrN I. A&L RUB.lNOW, Ph.. Lt. . -4ucus~ CLAESSENS MAX SCIIONBERG BEIVJAMIN C. GRUENEERG, Ph. D. PROF. JAMES T. SHOTWELL MORRIS RIXLQUIT JQEN SPAam PROP. Sm NEABJNG K .I. Sros~, Ph; D. AND OTHERS Educatisnd Dkectoc, hlgernon’ Lee Bkeentka Secretary, Bertha FJ. MaiUy 45 WHAT THE NEW YORK CALL 1-S What it Hopes, Believes and Does. Prints up-to-date news, condensed for quick reading, f,or earnest, thoughtful, busy people. Enlarges and comments editorially upon news affecting the great struggle of the people to restore and maintain their rights against the encroachments of concentrated wealth. Specializes on announcements of meetings of organized, la- bor, and meetings in the interest of militant and advancing democracy. Unlike other daily newspapers, ,The Call does not depend upon the advertising patronage of “Big Business.” It eman- cipated itself from the dictation of department stores and cor- porate interests, which control or limit the editorial expres- sions of other dailies, before assuming the task of emancipating others. It is heavily mortgaged to the working men and women who purchase and contribute to its support, but it is out of debt, free and independent, so far as “Big Business” is con- cerned. Do you know of any other newspaper like it? It contains editorials and contributed articles that are de- cidedly “different.” Written by specialists of worId-wide re- nown, they throw upon the gerat moving picture drama of the world’s events illuminating side-lights and comments necessary to a complete understanding of the tragedy of ages, namely, “THE STRUGGLE OF TI-TE CLASSES”-the tragedy that is as old as the stage of life. The Call believes that the present industrial system divides human beings into antagonistic classes that must inevitably make war upon each other, regardless of the nationality, age, sex, color, politics or religion of the people involved. Neglecting your press means neglecting your own cause, means smothering your own voice as a class, means to sacrifice your interests, your hope, your aspirations to a perverted and misled public opinion. You cannot afford to do this. YOU cannot possibly wish to disarm yourselves in favor of those 46 interested in your submissivene;s, your ignoqance . . ., ~< THE NEW YORK CALL Subscription Rates \ I MO. 3 MO. 6 MO. ; Yr. \&leek day only...... $ .50 $1.45 G-0 $3.00 Sunday only . . . . .‘...... 20 ‘I 50 1.00 2.00 Dailyand Sunday...... _. . . . . 1. .70 2.00 3.00 5.00 Two Years ...... $8.00 Clubs of three or more...... *...... $3.5o per year In addition to the above rates mail subscribers in ‘New York City and The Bronx must pay a cent a day additional to cover postage. , Pier&m ‘Offer. With every subscription received for one year at $s.obr The Call, orill give free any $1.50 book a’dvertised by The Call Book Shbp. Write for spedal magazine qlubbirig rates. THE NEW YORK CALL Subscription De?t:, P. 0. Box 1624 New York. .* 47 Do You ‘Wad a Foutitain Pen? We iZll send you one ti? t71ese ti-&m, p6&t~, parked in a box with fliier md printed guarantee FREE for every ycniiy subscription son send in to The New York Call at the rate of $6.00. This Is P premidm &At yWi Wtiirbt heat--The Daily Caii, ‘I% Cail.Si&dsy Siagazine for one whole year and B $1.50 fountain pen-ail for IX five dollar bill. Do not confuse this offer with the premium fonn- tain pens of cheap make and brass points often xiv- en away by cheap mz~~zines. This is & Pen that ail1 stand mp and give yen sdrvl& for years. We orrn buy them in qoantity ‘a& .a r@aBopBwe rate, md hy getting your nrtme on our mailing iiet for e fnii rk?hr &he i+Anioa&h ‘to p&y for the p’eb *e %iVe you. Thfs wmr we s&e you the cost of the pen-s&d in your five todw. You cannot afford to he without The Call, and YOU can “88 the pen. Mmd your order with check to the ‘fibe blew York ‘Call, Stib- P. 0. ‘ROX 16.24, I’PEW YORK CITY. Post&i r&ii%titms rmiulre that one cent a copy be add&i ‘3& +%tta&+e in Manhattan and Bronx, New York ($3.50 ?fier ye@ extra). 48 The SocialistParty NeedsYou But it needs you trained in the best ways of doing things and educated in the knowledge of International So- cialism. Every state, every city is calling for organizers, speakers, writers and secretaries. Sometimes these positions are compensated, sometimes not. Do you want to respond to the call? The day of fighting capitalism with a few devoted soap- boxers is past. Now we must prepare ourselves to meet their methods with equally good methods. Capitalism has all the money it needs to train its agents. The So- cialist Party has not. But in a few months’ work at the Rand School of Social Science, you can equip yourself to respond to the call of the workers’ militant movement. In our six months’ Full-Time Course we give you courses in the theory of Socialism and all Social Problems and also practical courses in Organization Methods, in English and Public Speaking. The Course begins immediately after election and ends the last of April. Begin to prepare. now for next year. Send for full information to THE RAND SCHOOL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE 140 East 19th Street New York City. .The Rand Book Store 140 East 19th Street, New York A center for Socialist and Radical Books and Peri- odicals. - A Store where any book on the market may be ordered. All profits on the sale of books go to the support of the school. Therefore every book you buy or order of the RAND BOOK STORE contributes to the welfare of the Workers’ University of the United States. Catalogues and Lists of. books on special subjects sent FREE on application. . . Subscribe for your periodicals through the “RAND BOOK STORE tie ‘kk your patronage for the benefit of the RAND SCHOOL